Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Dynamic Visualization Technology can Support Molecular Reasoning

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study aimed at exploring the advantages of dynamic visualization for the development of better understanding of molecular processes. We designed a technology-enhanced curriculum module in which high school chemistry students conduct virtual experiments with dynamic molecular visualizations of solid, liquid, and gas. They interact with the visualizations and carry out inquiry activities to make and refine connections between observable phenomena and atomic level processes related to phase change. The explanations proposed by 300 pairs of students in response to pre/post-assessment items have been analyzed using a scale for measuring the level of molecular reasoning. Results indicate that from pretest to posttest, students make progress in their level of molecular reasoning and are better able to connect intermolecular forces and phase change in their explanations. The paper presents the results through the lens of improvement patterns and the metaphor of the “ladder of molecular reasoning,” and discusses how this adds to our understanding of the benefits of interacting with dynamic molecular visualizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Constructing Physics Understanding in a Computer-Supported Learning Environment. http://cpuproject.sdsu.edu.

  2. By the Concord Consortium. See http://mw.concord.org.

  3. http://wise.berkeley.edu.

  4. TELS—Technology-Enhanced Learning in Science, an NSF supported center headed by Prof. Marcia Linn (UC Berkeley) and Dr. Robert Tinker (The Concord Consortium). See http://www.telscenter.org/.

  5. The citation and the image in Fig. 5 can be found at the "About" section of Molecular Workbench (MW) Web site http://mw.concord.org/modeler/moremw.html.

  6. The responses to Item 8 in Fig. 3 as well as to the MC-only items (without the students explaining why the choice was made) were not helpful in expressing levels of molecular reasoning, and therefore, were excluded from the current analysis.

  7. Retrieved September 15, 2012 from http://www.zewail.caltech.edu/nobel/Zewail_Feature.pdf.

  8. The typos appear in the original response.

  9. As the coding scheme does not classify responses as being “right” or “wrong,” correct answers like the one written by pair #226 could still be scored 0 because of not referring to molecules at all.

  10. All the typos are authentic.

References

  • Ainsworth S (2008) The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In: Gilbert JK, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 191–208

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth S, Van Labeke N (2004) Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learn Instruction 14:241–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey E, Worth B (2004). Making thinking visible: enhancing media literacy instruction. Unpublished design study report, Stanford University School of Education (Prof. Daniel Schwartz)

  • Berenfeld B, Tinker R (2001) Revolutionizing science teaching with atomic scale models. Paper presented at the national education computer conference (NECC). Chicago, IL

  • Bogdan RC, Biklen SK (1998) Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods, 3rd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley B, Gobert J, Kindfield ACH, Horwitz P, Tinker R, Gerlits B (2004) Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica: what do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark DB, Sampson V (2008) Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. J Res Sci Teach 45(3):293–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark DB, Varma K, McElhaney K, Chiu J (2008) Design rationale within TELS projects to support knowledge integration. In: Robinson D, Schraw G (eds) Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp 157–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch C, Fagen AP, Callan JP, Mazur E (2004) Classroom demonstrations: learning tools or entertainment? Am J Phys 72(6):835–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean S, Illowsky B (2012) Descriptive statistics: box plot. Retrieved September 15, 2012 from the Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org/content/m16296/1.12/

  • Dori YJ, Hameiri M (2003) Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems—symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. J Res Sci Teach 40(3):278–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feurzeig W, Roberts N (1999) Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK, Podolefsky NS (2005) When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev Special Topics Phys Educat Res 1(1):10103–10110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredette M (2012) Curriculum update: biology evolved. Transform Educat Through Technol 39(6):16–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets P, Imhof B, Kühl T, Pfeiffer V, Scheiter K, Gemballa S (2010) Using static and dynamic visualizations to support the comprehension of complex dynamic phenomena in the natural sciences. In: Verschaffel L, de Corte E, de Jong T, Elen J (eds) Use of external representations in reasoning and problem solving: analysis and improvement. Routledge, London, pp 153–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg F (2001) Some roles of computer technology in helping students learn physics: computer simulations. Paper presented at international conference on computer and information technology in physics education, Manila, Philippines. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/CRMSE/old_site/FG/pub1.pdf

  • Guzdial M (2011) Eric Mazur’s Keynote at ICER 2011: observing demos hurts learning, and confusion is a sign of understanding. Computing Education Blog, Aug 17, 2011. Retrieved September 26, 2011 from http://computinged.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/eric-mazurs-keynote-at-icer-2011-observing-demos-hurts-learning-and-confusion-is-a-sign-of-understanding/

  • Hegarty M (2004) Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learn Instr 14:343–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali Y, Linn MC (2008) Designing effective visualization for elementary school science. Elementary School J 109(2):181–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapitanoff SH (2009) Collaborative testing: cognitive and interpersonal processes related to enhanced test performance. Active Learn Higher Educat 10:56–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma R (2003) Material and social affordances of multiple representations for science understanding. Learn Instr 13(2):205–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H-S, Linn MC, Varma K, Liu OL (2010) How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J Res Sci Teach 47(1):71–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy D (2002) Collaborative conceptual change: the case of recursion. J Intell Syst 12(2):113–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy D (2009) Dynamic assessment tools for dynamic constructs: The case of molecular reasoning. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science and Technology (NARST) 2009, Garden Grove, CA

  • Levy D, Tinker R (2008) Links between dynamic representations of atomic-scale phenomena and molecular reasoning. In: Eshet-Alkalai Y, Caspi A, Geri N (eds) Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2008: Learning in the technological era. The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel, pp 66–70

  • Linn MC, Chiu JL (2011) Combining learning and assessment to improve science education. Res Pract Assess 5:5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn MC, Eylon B-S (2006) Science education: integrating views of learning and instruction. In: Alexander PA, Winne PH (eds) Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 511–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn MC, Eylon B-S (2011) Science learning and instruction: taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn MC, Clark D, Slotta JD (2003) WISE design for knowledge integration. Sci Educat 87:517–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (2004) Inquiry and technology. In: Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (eds) Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 3–28

  • Liu JL, Linn MC (2011) Knowledge integration and Wise engineering. J Pre Coll Eng Educat Res 1(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe R (2004) Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learn Instr 14(3):257–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur E (2011) The scientific approach to teaching: research as a basis for course design. Keynote presentation at the international computing education research workshop (ICER 2011), Providence, RI. Retrieved September 26, 2011 from http://mazur.harvard.edu/sentFiles/MazurTalk_1712.pdf

  • Meir E, Perry J, Stal D, Maruka S, Klopfer E (2005) How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biol Educat 4:235–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalchik V, Rosenquist A, Kozma R, Kreikemeier P, Schank P, Coppola B (2008) Representational resources for constructing shared understandings in the high school chemistry classroom. In: Gilbert J, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan NH, Hegarty M (2002) Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. Int J Hum Comput Stud 57(4):279–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant A, Tinker R (2004) Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panoff R (2009) Simulations deepen scientific learning. ASCD Express 4(19). Retrieved Aug 25, 2012 from http://www.ascd.org/ascd_express/vol4/419_panoff.aspx

  • Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93(3):223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell PM (2002) Peer interactions in shared technological activity: a study of participation. Int J Technol Des Educ 12:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundgren C-JA, Tibell L (2010) Critical features of visualizations of transport through the cell membrane: an empirical study of upper secondary and tertiary students’ meaning-making of a still image and an animation. Int J Sci Math Educat 8(2):223–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell J, Kozma R, Zohdy M, Susskind T, Becker D, Russell C (2000) SMV: Chem (Simultaneous Multiple Representations in Chemistry) [software]. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson V, Clark D (2011) A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices in two high and two low performing groups. Res Sci Educat 41(1):63–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt H-J, Kaufman B, Treagust DF (2009) Students’ understanding of boiling points and intermolecular forces. Chem Educat Res Pract 4(10):265–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott P (1998) Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: a Vygotskian analysis and review. Stud Sci Educat 32(1):45–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta P, Wilensky U (2009) Learning electricity with NIELS: thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. Int J Comput Math Learn 14(1):21–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley E, Moher T (2008) Instructional framing for nanoscale self-assembly design in middle school: a pilot study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 24–28, 2008

  • Slotta JD, Linn MC (2009) WISE science: web-based inquiry in the classroom. Teachers College Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Slusser R, Erickson RJ (2006) Group quizzes: an extension of the collaborative learning process. Teach Sociol 34(3):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith CL, Wiser M, Anderson CW, Krajcik J, Coppola B (2004) Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: matter and atomic molecular theory. Paper commissioned by the committee on test design for K-12 science achievement, Center for Education, National Research Council

  • Smith CL, Wiser M, Anderson CW, Krajcik J (2006) Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect 4(1&2):1–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer L, Stanne M, Donovan S (1999) Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educat Res 69(1):21–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staudt C (2008) Alternative assessments with snapshots. Spring 2008 @Concord Newsletter. Available online at http://www.concord.org/publications/newsletter/2008-spring/

  • Stieff M (2005) Connected chemistry—a novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. J Chem Educ 82(3):489–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton C (1996) The scientific model as a form of speech. In: Welford G, Osborne J, Scott P (eds) Research in science education in Europe. Falmer Press, London, pp 143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinker R, Xie Q (2008) Applying computational science to education: the molecular workbench paradigm. Comput Sci Eng 10(5):24–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinker R, Berenfeld B, Tinker B (1999) HOMS: hands on molecular science: annual report to the national science foundation (REC-9980620)

  • Tinker R, Berenfeld B, Tinker B (2000) Molecular workbench: annual report to the national science foundation (REC-9813485)

  • Vosniadou S (2010) Instructional considerations in the use of external representations: the distinction between perceptually based depictions and pictures that represent conceptual models. In: Verschaffel L, de Corte E, de Jong T, Elen J (eds) Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving: analysis and improvement. Routledge, London, pp 36–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman CE, Adams WK, Perkins KK (2008) PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science 322(5902):682–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U, Hazzard E, Froemke R (1999) GasLab—an extensible modeling toolkit for exploring statistical mechanics. Paper presented at the seventh annual European Logo conference EUROLOGO 99. Sofia, Bulgaria

  • Wouters P, Paas F, Van Merriënboer JJG (2008) How to optimize learning from animated models: a review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Rev Educat Res 78:645–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie Q, Lee H-S (2012) A visual approach to nanotechnology education. Int J Eng Educat 28(5):1006–1018

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie Q, Pallant A (2011) The molecular workbench software: an innovative dynamic modeling tool for nanoscience education. In Khine MS, Saleh IM (eds) Models and modeling: cognitive tools for scientific enquiry. Springer, New York, 121–132

  • Xie Q, Tinker RF (2006) Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. J Chem Educ 83:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments on an earlier draft, Dr. Galit Ashkenazi-Golan for her invaluable help, and the Concord Consortium developers and researchers with whom she had so many meaningful hours of discussion. This work was partially supported by the NSF under the TELS grant. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and the Arts, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Dalit Levy

Authors
  1. Dalit Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dalit Levy.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Four Items from the Online Pre/Post-Assessment Used in This Case Study

5. A sample of water is heated from a liquid at 40 °C to a gas at 110 °C. The heating curve is shown below.

Which section of the graph shows a phase change in the water sample?

(i) QR (ii) RS (iii) ST

Explain your choice. In your explanation, include what is happening to the water molecules.

6. If you want something to dissolve fast, you should mix it with:

  1. (a)

    Hot water.

  2. (b)

    Cold water.

Explain why, referring to molecular motion.

7. What happens to water molecules when a cube of ice is taken out of the freezer and left at room temperature?

9. Which of the following correctly ranks the three phases of matter from STRONGEST to WEAKEST intermolecular bonds?

  1. (a)

    Solid > liquid > gas

  2. (b)

    Gas > solid > liquid

  3. (c)

    Gas > liquid > solid

  4. (d)

    Solid > gas > liquid

Explain your choice, focusing on the strength of intermolecular forces in each phase.

Appendix 2

Sample Pretest Responses Recorded in One Class and Their Molecular Reasoning Scores

Explanations that do not contain any traces of thinking in the molecular level are scored “0,” and those who do are scored “1” (static), “2” (dynamic), or “3” (intermolecular).

Pair number

Responses of class 454-1 (pretest)a

To Item 6—If you want something to dissolve fast, you should mix it with:

MR score

38

Hot water. EXPLANATION: It’s heating up the item

0

39

Hot water. EXPLANATION: Molecules move around faster when they are hotter

2

40

Hot water. EXPLANATION: hot water moves faster, and more surface area touches the object

0

41

Hot water. EXPLANATION: As aforementioned in question 5, when heat is added to water, the space between the molecules is increased, which would allow, in theory, a substance to be dissolved at a faster rate

1

42

Hot water. EXPLANATION: Molecules move around faster

2

43

Hot water. EXPLANATION: The molecules in hot water moves faster

2

44

Hot water. EXPLANATION: The molecules are moving faster, so they diffuse things faster and better

2

45

Hot water. EXPLANATION: Hot water makes the stuff to be dissolved move faster and mix quicker

0

46

Hot water. EXPLANATION: The kinetic energy is much greater in hot water, so it just moves faster

0

47

Hot water. EXPLANATION: Hotter water molecules move faster because heat induces more energy which speeds things up

2

48

Hot water. EXPLANATION: in hot water the particles are more spread apart, therefore, they can mix faster

1

49

Hot water. EXPLANATION: Water particles are moving faster the hotter they are, so when another type of particle is introduced, it is distributed throughout the water more quickly

2

50

Hot water. EXPLANATION: This is because the particles in the water are moving faster because the heated water gives the particles more energy

2

51

Hot water. EXPLANATION: The molecules in the hot water are expanding and moving around- the movement will heat something and help it dissolve

2

  1. aAll these responses were recorded at the same class (class number 1 of TELS teacher number 454). While students were allowed to talk within the pairs when collaborating on their responses, this talking did not seem to have any effect even on the closest neighbor pairs

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levy, D. How Dynamic Visualization Technology can Support Molecular Reasoning. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 702–717 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9424-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9424-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation